Island activists and local lawmakers say they will keep the pressure on Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station owners to decommission the aging boiling water reactor quickly and safely, following a decision to close the plant.
Island activists and local lawmakers say they will keep the pressure on Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station owners to decommission the aging boiling water reactor quickly and safely, following a decision to close the plant.
Entergy, the New Orleans-based corporation that owns and operates Pilgrim, announced Tuesday it will shut down operations at the nuclear plant in Plymouth. Falling wholesale energy prices, lower profits and increased operational costs are all factors in the decision. The plant is slated to close no later than June 1, 2019, and possibly as much as two years earlier.
Cong. William Keating, who represents the district that includes Martha’s Vineyard, welcomed the company’s decision but was harshly critical of its safety record.
“Entergy’s shutdown announcement was not surprising given their unwillingness to deal with current safety standards,” Mr. Keating said in a statement. “Great scrutiny is necessary to make sure Entergy is responsible for maintaining proper safety standards throughout the closure process, something they failed to do during their operations.”
Island activists who have lobbied for the closure said there would be little celebration, and that the news will not end their protest of nuclear energy.
“It was long overdue,” said Mas Kimball of Oak Bluffs, who helped organize opposition to the plant. “Now it’s just a matter of seeing how quickly it can be done and what Entergy is going to do in terms of decommissioning it properly. I don’t think the activism is going to end. We have to keep our eyes and ears open.”
Ann Rosenkranz of West Tisbury, also active in opposition to the nuclear facility, said the news was encouraging, but she was disappointed the plant would not be shut down sooner.
“Entergy’s main concern is their financial burden,” Ms. Rosenkranz said “That really is not where we’re coming from at all. We’re coming from a standpoint of our health, our livelihood, our environment. We are less than 50 miles from the plant. If we are downwind from any kind of radiological accident, we have no evacuation plan.”
She said even a relatively minor accident at the plant could leave the Island devastated by nuclear contamination.
“We really would lose the Island,” she said. “We would all be relocated and unable to return home.”
In an announcement that surprised many on Tuesday, Entergy said economic issues prompted the decision to close the plant. But the company conceded that a recent decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to rank the Plymouth facility among the nation’s least safe nuclear plants was also a factor.
Entergy officials projected it would cost at least $45 million to respond to NRC safety concerns, which were detailed following an inspection earlier this year. Even without safety improvements, the operation was losing money, the company said in a news release.
“Before considering any impairment or the decision to close the plant, Pilgrim was expected to incur annual after-tax net losses on an operational basis ranging from approximately $10 million to $30 million for 2015, 2016 and 2017,” the release said.
Sen. Edward Markey, long an opponent of the Pilgrim plant, said the closure refutes industry claims that nuclear energy is safe and inexpensive.
“Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is just the latest example of how nuclear power simply cannot compete in the current energy market,” he said in a statement. “Alongside the economic conditions that Entergy blames this closure on, there also have been decades-long and repetitive operational safety and security concerns with the facility that have contributed to this announcement.”
Entergy is obligated by agreement with ISO New England, the nonprofit corporation that operates the power grid, to provide energy until 2019.
But the plant is scheduled for refueling in 2017, and company officials said it may make more sense to close the plant and begin decommissioning before that. A final decision on the closing date is expected in the first half of 2016.
A decision to close the plant earlier will depend on whether other sources of electricity can be found.
In a statement, Gov. Charlie Baker expressed concern that the loss of power generated at Pilgrim could trigger an energy shortage.
Entergy says it produces enough electricity to power approximately 600,000 homes, about 14 per cent of the energy produced in Massachusetts.
Cape and Islands Rep. Timothy Madden and Sen. Dan Wolf said attention should now turn to decommissioning the plant quickly and safely.
“There is a question about whether there are sufficient funds,” Mr. Madden told the Gazette by phone this week. “We’re going to do our due diligence to make sure the spent fuel rod [disposal] and decommissioning is done safely and done quickly.”
In a statement, Mr. Wolf concurred. “Now is not the time to relax,” he said.
Entergy says it has $870 million set aside for decommissioning.
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station opened in 1972.
In 2012, the NRC renewed Entergy’s license to operate the plant through 2032.
According to Entergy, the plant employs 600 workers, and adds 900 temporary employees during refueling operations every two years.

Comments
Here is a perfect case where
BG EdgHere is a perfect case where this expensive nuclear energy could be replaced with the abundant natural gas that is available domestically. Unfortunately New England suffers because of objections to installation of the gas pipelines necessary to meet the demand in the region. By the way, all of the readers should check your electric bills. If you don't remember what happened last winter when the price for the 'generation' portion of your bill went up 50% for 6 months, its time to shop for another supplier. This annual price spike will continue until the gas pipelines get built so that enough natural gas can reach New England to make clean cheap electricity...and replace expensive old out-dated nuclear power plants.
BG - there are many, many
Carol formerly ChilmarkBG - there are many, many ways to generate electricity, but with climate change, sea level rise and ocean acidification all happening as the result of burning fossil fuels, one would think Islanders would have been smarter and supported Cape Wind. Pretty hilarious that you all thought that woman who ran Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound was anything but what the NYT later found her out to be - a paid employee of Charles Koch, the billionaire oil baron.
Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro. Especially rooftop solar, which is very common all up & down the West Coast (I have it, and so do half a dozen of my neighbors). Skip the fossil fuels, join the 21st century.
Decommission Pilgrim as soon
Christine Powers WalthamDecommission Pilgrim as soon as possible, and do not refuel it in 2017! I keep thinking about Three Mile Island and the even worse Chernobyl disaster, and such tragedies should be prevented from occurring in this beautiful region of our state. Keep an eagle eye on Entergy to ascertain that they close Pilgrim in a safe and responsible manner. No more nukes!
You do realize those are
DGYou do realize those are completely different plant designs, especially Chernobyl which was a dual purpose power/weapons plant with no containment structure and neutron moderator material used as lubricant for the poisoning rods which caused a runaway power excursion when the operators tried to scram the reactor, a situation that is physically impossible in the US fleet of BWRs and PWRs, right?
What about Fukushima - the
Rosanne Shapiro Harwich MA (Cape Cod)What about Fukushima - the EXACT same design as Pilgrim? And, yes, weather conditions may differ between here & Japan but in a "perfect storm" scenario, those of us downwind from Pilgrim (Cape Cod, the Island, SE Mass) would be sitting ducks with no bona fide escape route.
Pilgrim: The same GE plant
Irene Paine YarmouthPilgrim: The same GE plant design as Fukushima. Could happen here! Earthquake, tidal wave resulting in power outage, the aux diesel generator for cooling pools doesn't start or is washed away, and we have a radioactive event that is beyond the imagination. The thousands of radioactive spent fuel rods really need to be properly dry casked ASAP, not in four years. WE are all living very near one of the most dangerous Nuke reactors in the US! Time to wake up and smell the coffee! One good burp of radioactivity, and our homes and businesses are worthless, and we better hope we have those KI pills ready for the kids. And this will be the case for decades after the reactor shuts down.
Its pretty hilarious that you
BG EdgIts pretty hilarious that you are still 'drinking the cape wind koolaid'. I'll take the abundant cheap natural gas generated electricity. If you want to subsidize a folly that will triple electricity prices, do so yourself, not with my money.(hence the reason the phonies try to block new gas pipelines) It appears you are reading from the same 'script', by making reference to something that has nothing to do with this article or the post. Try paying attention to facts for a change. Temperatures in the atmosphere are influenced by El Nino weather patterns, which will thankfully bring us a warmer winter this year (hence a quiet hurricane season). No expectations of the jet stream bringing the polar vortex of the past 2 winters.
There is only one solution:
Sheila Parks Watertown, MAThere is only one solution: COSE PILGRIM NOW. Entergy is immoral for operating such a crime against humanity as a nuclear power plant in the first place. And now they are continuing on their immoral path in the way they are going to close it. June 2019 indeed. They are playing Russian Roulette with our lives and our children's lives. Radioactive waste lasts 240,000 years - is this the legacy of death by leukemia and other cancers that we want to leave to our children, granddchildren and their children - more than 7 generations out and into eternity? CLOSE PILGRIM NOW
Fukushima made the case for
Anna Manatis east sandwichFukushima made the case for closing the Pilgrim Plant. It should come sooner than 2019. NRG is planning to propose an expansion of the Canal power plant in Sandwich which currently uses oil and gas. They want to add a peaker gas unit and Solar panels. I support the Solar panel project which they state "can stand on its own", but I am not for increasing the size of the plant overall. First I question if there is truly a power shortage in the Southeast region after all the building of gas based plants these last 10 years and second, I feel we should not increase our use of fossil fuels where we have a documented sea breeze front that brings pollutants back on to the Cape. I would support the solar panels in the expansion plant but I feel we need to push for renewable energy for the Canal location.
Isn't it the 'nuclear waste
Paul FloridaIsn't it the 'nuclear waste legacy' that folks should be most concerned about? This proposed method of 'cheap and abundant' fuel was a doomed failure from the start - but 'big energy' has a way of pulling the wool over an unsuspecting public's eyes.
Paul, concerns about a severe
David Agnew Cape CodPaul, concerns about a severe accident, either with this 'Fukushima-twin' reactor (the Union of Concerned Scientists has said that there was a "near miss" last January) or a mishap with it's ~3200 bundles of highly radioactive waste fuel, are well-founded, reasonable concerns. This is a reactor design whose containment structure is "virtually certain to fail in the event of a severe accident" (Harold Denton, top NRC safety expert at the time of Three Mile Island).
But you're certainly correct that the radwaste is of great concern as well. The Waste Isolation Pilot Project, our nation's only long-term nuclear waste repository is tasked by the EPA with isolating the poisons from the environment for one million years. It managed to do so for just 15 years before a cloud of plutonium vapors drifted down upon a nearby town. The industry, of course, tells us that this is 'just a political problem', but the fact is, 70 years into the atomic age, we don't know what to do with the waste.
David,
Paul FloridaDavid,
I was living in Washington State when a 'twin-tower' nuke plant was proposed for the Skagit Valley - with the cooling waters drawn from a 'wild and scenic' salmon spawning river! It was touted as 'safe' as the local newspaper was flooded with money from 'big power'...there was a grassroots effort to halt the madness which - glad to report - has been successful until this day!
Add new comment